SCREENnThe Virgin andnthe Paparazzonby Sam KarnicknHail Mary; Directed by Jean-LucnGodard: A Gaumont/New YorkernFilms release.nThe battle lines are drawn. On onenside, Pope John Paul II and the FrenchnNational Federation of Catholic FamilynRelations, along with numerousnreligious groups in this country. Onnthe other, the American media, includingnNew York magazine, the NewnYork Times, Gannett newspapers, andnmany, many more.nThe issue: Abortion? Nuclear weapons?nReturn to the Latin Mass? Liberationntheology? Not this hme. Thisntime the fuss is about a movie, specificallynHail Mary, the latest offeringnfrom Jean-Luc Godard, a French filmmakernborn in Switzerland 50 yearsnago. Godard was a member of thenFrench “New Wave” film group in thenlate 50’s and early 60’s and since thennhas dabbled in Maoism, video, and,nmost recenriy, what he calls (in English)na “move” toward religion. He isncertainly no stranger to controversy,nand his latest film has stirred up a rownwhich has forced religious figures tondisport themselves as film critics andnfilm critics to pretend to extraordinarynsophisdcation as theologians.nAs Hail Mary has made its waynacross America in the leisurely city-bycitynpace typical of foreign films,nAmerican clergy, especially Gatholicnclergy, have been hard-pressed to decidenwhether to condemn it outright ornto ignore it like Gardinal Bernadin ofnChicago and organize prayer meetingsnin honor of the Virgin Mary.nFilm critics, for their part, havenbeen-equally divided. Some have simplyndefended it on First AmendmentnVITAL SIGNSngrounds, while others have attemptednto characterize the film as not only notnirreligious but in fact a deeply religiousnfilm. In fact, says New York magazine’snDavid Denby, Hail Mary is “one ofnthe most tenderly religious movies evernmade.” Roger Ebert, speaking “as anCatholic” on TV’s Af the Movies,nconcurs.nWell, which is it? Foul blasphemynor deeply religious testament? Asnmight be expected, it is neither. Whatnit is is a heartfelt but deeply misguidednattempt to make the story of the ImmaculatenConception accessible to thenmodern mind.nHail Mary is a perfect incarnationnof the 20th century’s characteristic disease:nscientism, the discomfort withnthe unexplained, the mysterious, andnthe spiritual side of life. Perhaps thenstory of the Immaculate Conception isninaccessible to the modern mind. Itnwould certainly seem so. But the problemnis with the modern mind, not withnthe mysteries of creation. Godard’snfailing is that he has pitched his storyntoward the modern mind; it is a noblenattempt that was doomed from thenstart.nIt is not, of course, the story beingntold which has caused all the trouble,nbut rather the technique used in thentelling. The aim of the film is alwaysnto demystify the story, to make it seemnpossible, to make everything morenplausible to the earthbound 20thcenturynmind. The director has beennremarkably single-minded in his narrativentechnique. He takes specialnpains to demystify Mary herself. (It isnthis element which has probably contributednmost to making the film sonoffensive to Catholics.) Godard showsnMary playing basketball, working innher father’s gas station, swearing,nsmoking cigarettes, using bright rednlipstick, writhing in pain on her bed,nand arguing with her boyfriend. Marynalso spends much of the film in varyingndegrees of undress, although in thendirector’s defense the nudity does notnnnappear salacious.nStill, it seems quite unnecessary toninclude so much nudity and pain,nhowever well-intentioned. We get thenpoint: She’s just your average, everydaynteenage girl chosen by God to bearnhis only Sori. Furthermore, there isnone scene in which Mary swears furiouslynat God, accuses him of “using”nher, and blasphemes angrily. Thenscene is passionate, dramatic, compelling,nand terribly offensive. Worse yet,nit doesn’t ring true. Godard’s Marynmay be human, but it seems quitenunlikely that the pain of her pregnancynand the terrible responsibility thrustnupon her were not tempered by a sensenof joy at the prospect of having a childnand a sense of exaltahon at beingnchosen to bear God’s only Son. Whateverncredibility the film has hadnamong Christians up to this pointndissipates completely.nThe same single-mindedness appliesnto the treatment of the otherncharacters. The director portrays Josephnas the quintessential cuckold.nJoseph is at first understandably skephcalnof Mary’s claim, but soon becomesncrazed with jealousy. He is faithful tonher, and while he tries to convincenMary to go to bed with him, he doesn’tntry too hard, and eventually settles fornjust seeing her naked. A very tendernrelationship it is. But he also initiatesnvicious shouting matches and generallynmakes an ass of himself It is not, allnin all, a very flattering portrait.nNor is the picture of the angel Gabriel.nGabriel wears sunglasses, dressesnlike a hipster and acts like a caricaturenof Belmondo—alternately tough andnsensual. He also travels with a little girlnwho cues him when he forgets hisnlines. In addition to all this, there is ansubplot in which a lecherous academicnattempts to seduce Eve (yes, that Eve).nThe film is intended as a serious comedy,nbut the characters are too onedimensionalnto be taken seriously.nStill, although much of the film isnsimple-minded and childish, there arenAUGUST 1986 / 35n